CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017 place him in mortal danger. In support of his claim, the author submitted testimonials from a board member of Humanists Stockholm and a founder of the Ex-Muslims of Sweden.14 2.8 On 29 September 2017, the Migration Court rejected the author’s appeal, after examining whether the conditions to grant the author a re-examination under chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act had been fulfilled, without a trial or a hearing. As for the security situation in Afghanistan and the author’s belonging to the Hazara ethnic group, the Court noted that, in the decision resulting in the author’s final and non-appealable expulsion order, it had previously concluded that the author’s grounds for protection should not be based on the situation in only a specific part of Afghanistan and that his belonging to the Hazara ethnic group alone could not be considered to mean that he risked persecution in any area in Afghanistan. The Court noted that his claims regarding the prevailing security situation in the country would in part constitute new circumstances relative to the previous examination. However, it concluded that the general situation in Afghanistan as a whole, and the situation of the Hazara, did not in themselves constitute grounds for a residence permit. 2.9 The Court noted that the fact that the author was an atheist was a new claim and that, according to available country information, if a person plausibly demonstrated that he or she had left Islam, the person would normally be deemed to be in need of protection. It considered that the decisive factor was whether the author’s standpoint was based on genuine conviction. The Court noted that the reasoning that the author had presented concerning his rejection of Islam was general in nature and did not express a deeper personal conviction. The letters furnished in support of the author’s claims were in large part based on his own claims. In addition, the Court found it strange that, even given the fact that the author’s attitude to religion had changed gradually since he arrived in Europe, those circumstances were only presented after the expulsion order had become final and non-appealable. 15 In the light of those findings, the Court considered that the author’s assertion that he genuinely held the views of an atheist was not sufficiently reliable to meet the standard of proof. Against that background,16 the Court considered that the claim that the author was an atheist did not constitute new circumstances that could be assumed to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement within the meaning of chapter 12, sections 1, 2 or 3, of the Aliens Act. The Court therefore found that there was no basis for granting a re-examination of the author’s application under the Aliens Act. 2.10 The author appealed the decision to the Migration Court of Appeal, which refused leave to appeal on 21 November 2017. 2.11 In the interim, in a letter dated 18 October 2017, the author wrote to the Embassy of Afghanistan to Sweden, in Stockholm, explaining his situation, namely, that he had left Islam and feared for his safety, to see if they would help him. He received no reply from the Embassy.17 2.12 The author appeared in many Swedish national, local and online media for renouncing Islam. According to one article, the State party tried to deport the author without success, due to a massive protest by several hundred protestors outside of the deportation centre in Märsta, Sweden. 14 15 16 17 4 The copies of the letter from the board member of Humanists Stockholm, dated 9 September 2017, and the letter from a founder of Ex-Muslims of Sweden, dated 15 September 2017, are on file with the Committee. The Court also noted that the author, during the asylum investigation, did not mention anything about his doubts as to his Muslim faith. According to the author, it is because he did not know the great significance of his beliefs as being grounds for protection and, at the time of the initial application for residence permit, his thoughts were not clear and he was still in a process of questioning and exploring. The Court did not take into consideration the deterioration of the author’s mental and physical health status, because it considered that those matters were not directly linked to the need for protection with respect to the country of origin and therefore fell outside the scope of its examination. The author claims that he is afraid that information has fallen into the wrong hands and that he is at risk of reprisals at the airport in Kabul, given that the information might end up in the hands of government officials in Afghanistan.